Congratulations! You actually finally answered the question with a reality-based answer instead of dream-world rhetoric!

But let's take a look at what you've just decided.

You have just said that you would be happy catching, arresting, and deporting FEWER drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists who are actually a threat to us ---- just so you can continue to hunt down and deport the spouses and relatives of our OWN US SOLDIERS, and some kids who's PARENTS violated US law.

Really??? Are you being serious???

You want to catch FEWER violent criminals, gang members, drug cartel members, and terrorists, just so we can continue deporting soldier's spouses and kids in school?

You either still can't do math, or you have one sick and twisted set of values. We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to see a SINGLE violent criminal, gang member, drug cartel member, or terrorist walk free because resources were cut from going after them. Why do you want to see MORE of these baddies go free?

Seriously no one would go after military spouses. I'm moving one. You clearly only hear what you want to hear and just fall back on simple emotional arguments. I'm taking my Bimmer for joy ride now before its too late.

We're on page 5, and I posted the actual policy on page 1. You are 5 pages behind. I'm sorry you aren't aware of what the actual policy says that you object to so loudly. Here is what the policy actually says:

• whether the person, or the person's immediate relative,has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;

YES, there absolutely ARE people who have personally served in the military facing deportation. YES, there are immediate relatives such as spouses who are currently under deportation proceedings. There are roughly THIRTY THOUSAND soldiers in the US military who are non-citizens. Many are fighting in war-zones like Afghanistan and Iraq to defend OUR COUNTRY, while worrying if their immediate family may face deportation at home. I personally want them thinking about getting the baddies, not whether their immediate family faces deportation back home. I'm sorry you think this is an "emotional argument", when it is a purely rational, logical policy change we're talking about.

But I'm glad to hear you actively support the DHS's official policy change where these soldiers, and their immediate family won't face deportation:

The following positive factors should prompt particular care and consideration:
• veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces;

...Even though you had no idea what the new DHS policy was, and that it already aligned with your own beliefs that the immediate family of military members should not be deported.

The next thing you know, you will be saying that you think women who NEVER personally violated the law, but were victims of human sex-trafficking rings who kidnapped them and smuggled them into the US, shouldn't be sitting in US Customs jails while being 100% innocent of any crime. Or is that something you think is a good thing?

Go take your joy-ride. We'll keep taking care of the serious business while you're gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecleland

Seriously no one would go after military spouses. I'm moving one. You clearly only hear what you want to hear and just fall back on simple emotional arguments. I'm taking my Bimmer for joy ride now before its too late.

Try opening your eyes, or maybe reading the answers in these threads (posted over and over). The stimulus ended the recession, stopped the big corporate bankruptcies, boosted the stock market tremendously, and is (slowly) bringing down unemployment, which was always predicted to take the longest to recover.

There is a graph elsewhere in these threads, which shows that the stimulus spending represents a very small portion of the debt, and in fact much of the stim money has been paid back with interest. The majority of our debt is from: existing debt, the decade-long wars, 2 rounds of unfunded Bush stimulus checks, and reduced fed revenue caused by the recession.

As I've said over and over, just look at the economic situation during Reagan's first term, and when you see how remarkably similar it is, ask yourself why Reagan is a god to you guys, while Obama is the destroyer of America.

This, I don't know the figures... but almost all of it has been paid back.

Can anyone find a case where a deployed soldier's spouse was deported? That would be terrible! Bueller? Bueller?

Meantime, since I didn't break any laws during my lengthy service, I think I'm overdue for a couple. Think nobama will let me slide? Or is it only certain kinds of peeps that get special treatment?

Did you even TRY to find out the answer??? Because cases are so easily found out there, that it isn't even funny.

It floors me how many people come and bitch about policies when they don't know what the policies actually say, and come here asking about facts when it is absolutely clear they never even TRY to find out the answers themselves. And it's the same folks every time. You would think they would finally some day be embarrased enough to actually bother FACT CHECKING themselves.

Who would you trust as a source (since there are tons of different examples to choose from)? How about the Department of Defense's own Stars and Stripes? Good enough source for you, or will you bitch that it is too lefty socialist for you?

When Guevara explained her situation to the immigration officer, the response was less than helpful. “I told him, ‘My unit is going to be deployed, so I’m afraid— what if I’m gone and I’m stationed over in Iraq or Kuwait, and my husband’s [status] expires?’” she says. “What’s going to happen to my kids?”

She says the officer responded, “You worry about that when that happens.” Advocates say many military families are in the same boat. Though official figures aren’t collected, Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who helped establish the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Military Assistance Program, says she gets at least one phone call a day from military personnel with immigration troubles.

Did you even TRY to find out the answer??? Because cases are so easily found out there, that it isn't even funny.

It floors me how many people come and bitch about policies when they don't know what the policies actually say, and come here asking about facts when it is absolutely clear they never even TRY to find out the answers themselves. And it's the same folks every time. You would think they would finally some day be embarrased enough to actually bother FACT CHECKING themselves.

Who would you trust as a source (since there are tons of different examples to choose from)? How about the Department of Defense's own Stars and Stripes? Good enough source for you, or will you bitch that it is too lefty socialist for you?

When Guevara explained her situation to the immigration officer, the response was less than helpful. “I told him, ‘My unit is going to be deployed, so I’m afraid— what if I’m gone and I’m stationed over in Iraq or Kuwait, and my husband’s [status] expires?’” she says. “What’s going to happen to my kids?”

She says the officer responded, “You worry about that when that happens.” Advocates say many military families are in the same boat. Though official figures aren’t collected, Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who helped establish the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Military Assistance Program, says she gets at least one phone call a day from military personnel with immigration troubles.

Now just get the Fudge out of here with your idiocy.

Reading is sooooo fundamental. A DEPLOYED soldier whose spouse is actually DEPORTED. That means (simple language, just for you) a soldier who is downrange and his/her illegal alien spouse is physically deported while he/she is gone. I would like to know if that has actually happened. Surely a committed interweb dweller like you with high-end wiki skills can find one.

Reading is sooooo fundamental. A DEPLOYED soldier whose spouse is actually DEPORTED. That means (simple language, just for you) a soldier who is downrange and his/her illegal alien spouse is physically deported while he/she is gone. I would like to know if that has actually happened. Surely a committed interweb dweller like you with high-end wiki skills can find one.

k

Again, DO YOUR OWN FUDGING RESEARCH before you start yapping. Yes, it is easy to find examples of the immediate family of soldiers having been deported while the solders were deployed.

But you COMPELETEY miss the point.

I want soldiers focused 100% on getting the baddies while they are deployed, because I support ALL the troops. You on the other hand have no problem with soldiers being deployed suffering horrible stress and distraction because the US gov't is holding a sword over their family's head while they are stuck half way around the world and helpless to to do anything.

But over and over folks on the right wing who wrap themselves in a flag and claim they "support the troops" really only support the Straight Christian WASP Male troops. Frankly, I'm sick of it. If you can't support ALL the troops, INCLUDING the ones who are facing having their families broken up, be honest and stop claiming you "support the troops".

Again, DO YOUR OWN FUDGING RESEARCH before you start yapping. Yes, it is easy to find examples of the immediate family of soldiers having been deported while the solders were deployed.

But you COMPELETEY miss the point.

I want soldiers focused 100% on getting the baddies while they are deployed, because I support ALL the troops. You on the other hand have no problem with soldiers being deployed suffering horrible stress and distraction because the US gov't is holding a sword over their family's head while they are stuck half way around the world and helpless to to do anything.

But over and over folks on the right wing who wrap themselves in a flag and claim they "support the troops" really only support the Straight Christian WASP Male troops. Frankly, I'm sick of it. If you can't support ALL the troops, INCLUDING the ones who are facing having their families broken up, be honest and stop claiming you "support the troops".

That's what I thought--hard to find an example. Kinda puts the kibosh on your entire thesis doesn't it?

Liberal love for our soldiers is a relatively new (and shallow) thing. Wasn't that way in the past and it will fade away again as soon as the budget fight starts and we get the troops home. Soldiers are not a liberal constituency and social engineering and feel good legislation will take precedence. It's the way you roll, nothing new.

I spent almost three decades taking care of soldiers. Forgive me if I take your heartfelt declaration of soldier-love with a pound of salt--been there, heard that, don't believe you.

Why's it so hard for you guys when it comes to enforcing the law of the land?

Liberal love for our soldiers is a relatively new (and shallow) thing. Wasn't that way in the past and it will fade away again as soon as the budget fight starts and we get the troops home. Soldiers are not a liberal constituency and social engineering and feel good legislation will take precedence. It's the way you roll, nothing new.

It's apparent by the way you talk about others as scum, that you post here because no one in the real world would ever put up with you. What I don't understand, though, is why you think that anyone cares about your bigoted thoughts.

Yes, let's really love our soldiers by sending them to die in two decade long, unnecessary wars with no exit plan. Support the troops by cutting their funding. You sicken me.

It's apparent by the way you talk about others as scum, that you post here because no one in the real world would ever put up with you. Isn't this what I told you just a while ago? Do try to be original once in a while, won't you? What I don't understand, though, is why you think that anyone cares about your bigoted thoughts.

Yes, let's really love our soldiers by sending them to die in two decade long, unnecessary wars with no exit plan. Support the troops by cutting their funding. You sicken me.

Seems you and your diminished capacity brother are victims of the exact same challenges--can't read, can't stay on point, can't do much but engage in girly interweb slap fights. Clue--the OP isn't about the war and, so sorry, I never said word one about cutting funding. So it would seem you are, once again, irrelevant, off topic, angry and completely lost.

Seems you and your diminished capacity brother are victims of the exact same challenges--can't read, can't stay on point, can't do much but engage in girly interweb slap fights. Clue--the OP isn't about the war and, so sorry, I never said word one about cutting funding. So it would seem you are, once again, irrelevant, off topic, angry and completely lost.

1) Only retards post in all-bold
2) I was replying to YOUR post about the war - so it would seem once more, that you have shot yourself in the foot.
3) I never said one of the things that you say "liberals say", so how do YOU like it?
4) The reason you made this reply is because you have no justification for the posts you make, so instead you just attack me.
5 - 9) Why wouldn't I be angry at the things you call me? And what am I "completely lost" about? What can't I read - I sure read your bigoted post. By replying to you, I'm engaging in a girly fight? So are we supposed to take your posts as the word of God, and never reply? Why would you post if you don't want a reply? What's the difference between irrelevant and off-topic?

We're all sick and tired of your empty rhetoric. Clue - stop using hackneyed platitudes, and actually say something factual, intelligent, and with a point.

Liberal love for our soldiers is a relatively new (and shallow) thing. Wasn't that way in the past and it will fade away again as soon as the budget fight starts and we get the troops home. Soldiers are not a liberal constituency and social engineering and feel good legislation will take precedence. It's the way you roll, nothing new.

I spent almost three decades taking care of soldiers. Forgive me if I take your heartfelt declaration of soldier-love with a pound of salt--been there, heard that, don't believe you.

You are three decades behind if you think the Republican Party elites give a rat's ass about actual soldiers. The top power players see the military the same way they see schools and health care and social security, etc. The military is just another huge pool of money they want to skim 20% off the top of in privatized profit.

They want to replace you.

They want more mercenaries, more "private contractors", more war profiteering. And they DO NOT need Americans in their new mercenary army, they are using more and more foreigners even now.

They are playing you for a fool. They don't care about you or any soldier. But they will use your vote and your political backing against US soldiers by replacing them the same way our manufacturing base has been replaced. Good luck getting anything out of the Republican Party elites for soldiers after they have successfully outsourced your jobs to foreign contractors for a tidy 20% profit on their behalf.

If US soldiers actually understood that their OWN careers were going the same way Union jobs have already gone, soldiers would figure out they SHOULD align with their natural allies on the labor side of politics. Instead of sucking up to the big business war profiteer party that humps the Military, but sees actual US soldiers as a liability they don't need in order to reap profits.

If you keep voting for them and their supporters, don't come crying to those of us who actually give a damn about ALL soldiers as PEOPLE, when they kick you to the curb because you are nothing more than a finanacial liability to them that needs to be outsourced.

(PS -- If you don't understand that jobs once held by US soldiers are being outsourced to foreigners, and if you don't know about all the anti-soldier Republican policies, take a bit of time to learn what you don't know before responding)

(PS -- If you don't understand that jobs once held by US soldiers are being outsourced to foreigners, and if you don't know about all the anti-soldier Republican policies, take a bit of time to learn what you don't know before responding)

Being as how it's Labor Day and I'm feeling generous I have to say some of what you say approximates truth. Of course, given my career military background and my post-retirement work in the military-industrial complex as a government contractor, I may know just a teenie weenie bit about the subject. So, my "learning curve" is pretty much completed but thanks for the coaching.

Government contractors do perform a moderate amount of jobs that may have been formerly accomplished by soldiers. They also perform a wide range of activities that soldiers have never done. Much of this is due to the fact that soldiers are way more expensive than contractors. Every soldier comes with a "tail"-the cost of his training, his care and feeding, his healthcare, housing, retirement, etc. A contractor comes with none of that--he costs the market price for his labor. There's another dimension to this and that is the cap on size of the uniformed force. There are defined numbers of soldiers needed to perform the mission at hand. In today's army you need more tooth than tail and the size can't be exceeded. Therefore, contractors are the best, most cost-effective way to do a lot of missions (higher echelon maintenance, food preparation, transportation outside of war zone, etc.) that have to be done but soldiers are not the right answer. Now the reason there are foreign nationals being used (overseas only) is budgetary in nature. The military has X amount to spend and hiring a local national in Afghanistan to do the scut work, at wages an ex-pat American won't accept just makes good business sense. Besides, there are plenty of jobs downrange that remain unfilled that Americans can have if they want them.

Being as how it's Labor Day and I'm feeling generous I have to say some of what you say approximates truth. Of course, given my career military background and my post-retirement work in the military-industrial complex as a government contractor, I may know just a teenie weenie bit about the subject. So, my "learning curve" is pretty much completed but thanks for the coaching.

Government contractors do perform a moderate amount of jobs that may have been formerly accomplished by soldiers. They also perform a wide range of activities that soldiers have never done. Much of this is due to the fact that soldiers are way more expensive than contractors. Every soldier comes with a "tail"-the cost of his training, his care and feeding, his healthcare, housing, retirement, etc. A contractor comes with none of that--he costs the market price for his labor. There's another dimension to this and that is the cap on size of the uniformed force. There are defined numbers of soldiers needed to perform the mission at hand. In today's army you need more tooth than tail and the size can't be exceeded. Therefore, contractors are the best, most cost-effective way to do a lot of missions (higher echelon maintenance, food preparation, transportation outside of war zone, etc.) that have to be done but soldiers are not the right answer. Now the reason there are foreign nationals being used (overseas only) is budgetary in nature. The military has X amount to spend and hiring a local national in Afghanistan to do the scut work, at wages an ex-pat American won't accept just makes good business sense. Besides, there are plenty of jobs downrange that remain unfilled that Americans can have if they want them.

Thanks for confirming from the inside that you folks view actual US soldiers as an expense that needs to be eliminated and replaced with foreign workers, so you can make your 20% off the top. Your company can't make 20% off the top of US soldier's salaries, can they? But you certainly WILL make a profit off of every contractor your company hires, right?

There are "plenty of jobs"??!?! Seriously? The Manufacturing industry employees heard every single one of the same lines before their industry was decimated by out-sourcing too. US Soldiers need to realize they are following in the footsteps of US Manufacturing Jobs -- outsourced straight out of this country.

Any US soldiers here should wake up and realize that you are NOT important to these folks. Right now for every US soldier in Afghanistan, there are 1.5 contractors doing jobs that were done by US soldiers in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.

Wondering why your signing bonus isn't as much as it used to be? The answer is Outsourcing. They don't need to give you a big signing bonus, they will hire a Pakistani instead.

Wondering why you haven't been promoted up and given a command, or put in command of more soldiers? Outsourcing. They are hiring other people to manage those contractors. They don't need to promote you.

Wondering why Republicans fought AGAINST better benefits, such as better education (GI Bill) and better health care? Outsourcing. They would rather hire a contractor and not pay the expense for soldier's benefits.

Wondering why your training is lower quality than before, is shorter, and involves outdated equipment? Outsourcing. Making you a better soldier is an expense they do not want when they can hire someone else cheaper.

Thanks for confirming from the inside that you folks view actual US soldiers as an expense that needs to be eliminated and replaced with foreign workers, so you can make your 20% off the top. Your company can't make 20% off the top of US soldier's salaries, can they? But you certainly WILL make a profit off of every contractor your company hires, right?

There are "plenty of jobs"??!?! Seriously? The Manufacturing industry employees heard every single one of the same lines before their industry was decimated by out-sourcing too. US Soldiers need to realize they are following in the footsteps of US Manufacturing Jobs -- outsourced straight out of this country.

Any US soldiers here should wake up and realize that you are NOT important to these folks. Right now for every US soldier in Afghanistan, there are 1.5 contractors doing jobs that were done by US soldiers in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.

Wondering why your signing bonus isn't as much as it used to be? The answer is Outsourcing. They don't need to give you a big signing bonus, they will hire a Pakistani instead.

Wondering why you haven't been promoted up and given a command, or put in command of more soldiers? Outsourcing. They are hiring other people to manage those contractors. They don't need to promote you.

Wondering why Republicans fought AGAINST better benefits, such as better education (GI Bill) and better health care? Outsourcing. They would rather hire a contractor and not pay the expense for soldier's benefits.

Wondering why your training is lower quality than before, is shorter, and involves outdated equipment? Outsourcing. Making you a better soldier is an expense they do not want when they can hire someone else cheaper.

The military, its operations, personnel policies, contracting, etc. are clearly far outside of your personal experience or education. It is patently obvious to even the most casual observer that you are ignorant and operating out of your depth. No big deal actually, you are a part of a huge majority that never took the time to understand what the military does or how it does it. This is a complex subject, you can't wiki or google yourself to competence.